Something missing form "When does life begin?"

Earl said “The choice of one point over another is arbitrary unless of curse it is the point “You” (meaning generic YOU) choose, in which case “You” feel “Your” point is correct and all other choices are arbitrary.”

The problem, Earl, is that any point beyond the moment of conception that you pick will be found to demonstrate that life has already begun. One’s choice is arbitrary only if one doesn’t recognize the difference between actuality and potentiality, in which case, one is negating the reality of his or her own perception that is warranted by empirical evidence and sufficient reason.

Again,
When does life begin?


Life begins in all animals at the moment of conception.
Human beings are a species of animal.
Therefore, life begins in a human being at the moment of conception.

AND

Murdering an innocent human being is wrong.
An unborn baby is an innocent human being.
Therefore, murdering an unborn baby is wrong.

No one (anywhere) has offered a convincing argument, beyond assumption, that consciousness exists or produced such a consciousness for examination. Descartes begged this question too. As elegant as his question begging was, it was still that: assuming his argument. While I think I know what you are probably referring to (the sense of “me” and the thoughts thinkers have), you are apparently unaware that there is a wide variety of thinking about that concept in the world, including that it doesn’t exist. You use “consciousness” in a different sense, committing a fallacy of ambiguity when suggesting that a zygote or fetus has the same sort of consciousness as a fully realized human being. For that proposition, which is not philosophical, but rather scientific, there is zero evidence, nor is it a reasonable inference. The argument that you are trying to reach for is that the fetus, if not subject to abortion (spontaneous or deliberate), will become a human being like the rest of us. That is an argument of natural law, not of science.

I don’t agree with any three of your propositions, and the only one that I can even come close on is whether inanimate objects have consciousness in either of the senses you have been using the word. They probably don’t have consciousness. But the only reason I can consider that inanimate objects don’t have consciousness is because it is irrelevant to anything I am doing with that subject. I suspect that a physicist could probably make as convincing an argument that an object with a quantum state of superposition does have consciousness.

I would suggest that you really have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to consciousness other than a person’s sense of identity.

Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?
William James (1904) Classics in the History of Psychology -- James (1904)

double post

You can’t assume that all brain activity is the same kind of brain activity and equivalent. I don’t dispute that there is such as thing as brain activity. But the brain activity of a fetus isn’t the same thing as brain activity of an adult or a child.

And the underlying question isn’t abortion, it’s when does life begin. We all recognize that this could have consequences for the abortion debate. I am in favor of abortion rights, but that does not affect my opinion of when a separate life begins. I think Blackmun did as good a job in a gray area as is possible. Arguing that a fetus with brain activity is entitled to all human rights when it does not speak, reason, take care of itself, feed itself etc., and say that Koko the gorilla, who can do all of those things (albeit in sign language) is a piece of property is just the result of human beings being bigots embracing their own species at the expense of everything else. If people can make an argument that consciousness is the point of deserving protection, I can argue that Koko meets all of those same criteria, including most of the same DNA sequences. Is Koko conscious? No more or no less so than I am. I don’t think it is proven for either.

>>Brother Woody: >>>Life begins in all animals at the moment of conception.
Human beings are a species of animal.
Therefore, life begins in a human being at the moment of conception.

AND

Murdering an innocent human being is wrong.
An unborn baby is an innocent human being.
Therefore, murdering an unborn baby is wrong.
<<<<<

A classic example of a fallacious philosophical argument from my Philosophy 101 days.

Almost as good as;
Some dogs have fleas,
My dog has fleas
Therefore my dog is some dog.

The faulty premise does establish conclusion.

Earl said: “A classic example of a fallacious philosophical argument from my Philosophy 101 days.”

Earl, Which one of my first premises is fallacious? As importantly, why do you think so? You might want to review your 101 logic as well as your 101 epistemology. BTW, your example is both logically correct as well as being a truthful conclusion that’s warranted both by the empirical evidence and sufficent reason.

Your very first one. “Life begins in all animals at the moment of conception.” You believe it is not fallacious. Therefore you conclude it is not fallacious.

I take the premise to mean that it is the type of life, i.e a dogs life begins when the dog is concieved etc. as opposed to some other living organism that merely has the potential to become a dog at some later time.

Others believe life (i.e the life of thst particular organism, i.e. a dog or anything else as opposed to the potential for life tof the particular creature.) does not begin in any animal at the moment of conception. You would (if I may be so bold as to hazard a guess) believe that there premise is fallacious. Those holding the belief do not think so.

You are right and they are wrong because…

At this juncture in history with liberalism and evil and terrorism seemingly at an all time zeneth, perhaps abortion should be allowed through the third year of college. Perhaps, by then, mom and society can best determine if the living organism is; human, viable, and potentially an asset to society or indeed worthless and without rights.

I’m a long-time reader of Cecil’s, but I’ve never been inspired to post before. Hopefully I can go easy on opinion, which tends to sow discord, and heavy on facts that may garner consensus. Briefly, my opinion: I greatly appreciated that his original article was frank, candid, and factual about a scientific question that gets dragged into the dirty world of politics so easily. The main focus wasn’t about his opinion on abortion laws. The question was, “When does human life begin?” Though it will invariably raise questions about the ethics of abortion, it is still a scientific question, and Cecil answered it honestly. From a biological, scientific perspective, there is consensus that life begins at conception. That isn’t philosophy or politics; it’s biology.

I’ve noticed some readers objected to Cecil’s use of “unborn child” in his article instead of “fetus.” It is very true that use of proper terminology is important and helps shape our opinions. However, it would be a mistake to imply that “fetus” refers to something fundamentally different from a child in utero. Doing so turns “fetus” into a verbal weapon, an attempt to dehumanize said fetus. The etymology of “fetus” reveals that it is a Latin word which, directly translated, means “offspring” or “young one.” In other words, any young progeny, regardless of relation to the womb. In our English use, we use it to specifically describe the young offspring, accurately but more sentimentally referred to as a child, while it remains in utero.

As the discussion on this thread shows, all this is almost inextricably bound up in the abortion debate. I don’t care much for rhetoric and slogans, but I have found medical and court documents personally enlightening. In describing his experience with first trimester abortions, Dr. Martin Haskell stated,

“When we do a suction curettage abortion, you know, roughly one of three things is going to happen during the abortion. One would be that the catheter as it approaches the fetus, you know, tears it and kills it at that instant inside the uterus. The second would be that the fetus is small enough and the catheter is large enough that the fetus passes through the catheter and either dies in transit as it’s passing
through the catheter or dies in the suction bottle after it’s actually all the way out.”
(Sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
(Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S)

A second trimester abortion, described in the medical textbook “Abortion Practice” has these words from Dr. Warren Hern on p.154:

“The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become
much more cohesive and difficult to dismember. This problem is accentuated by the
fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no
longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the
pelvis, present more difficulty….A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to
decapitate and dismember the fetus…”

I’m only concerned when we consider the possibility that we may be dealing with human beings here. If the fetus is no more a person than a tumor, then we have no problem. If it is a person, we have a grave problem indeed.

>>I’m only concerned when we consider the possibility that we may be dealing with human beings here. If the fetus is no more a person than a tumor, then we have no problem. If it is a person, we have a grave problem indeed. <<

I think you have hit upon the very crux of the problem. Why must the fertilized egg at whatever stage be one or the other? i.e. a human life or a tumor. Even using the term “Fetus” does not solve the problem since dictionaries say the fertilized egg is not a fetus immediately but only after a certain developmental stage is reached. i.e.

n. pl. fe·tus·es

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

So, you would still have an issue as to what it is or what to call it before that stage.

Of course, if you classified it as a human life from conception the concept is easy. If you classify it as something other than a human life until any other point in development or birth, you then are opposed to the Human life begins at conception argument.
Classifying the fertilized egg as a human life results in all sorts of issues which have already needed court rulings, specificaly what are the rights of the organism, or the procreators as pertains to that organism if it never leaves the test tube / petri dish and is distroyed?

I think we are understanding arbitrary differently. In one you response you said that the first breath is the mark because as soon as it starts aspirating, a life form becomes its unique form. That changes your point to non-arbitrary. Now, I can logically critique or agree with it. It may be that we will never change our minds, but if the point you are choosing is truly arbitrary, and I have reason for mine, what reason do you have not accepting my point? They are all equally valid to you.

For me, it doesn’t matter whether or not something called consciousness can be objectively defined. We can get all existential or solipsistic and run in logical rings to find a true first principle. But at the end of the day, we need to accept some assumptions just to function. To that end, I choose to accept that I exist, that you exist, that there is such a thing as an identity/consciousness/soul* that thinks and feels in all the people I interact with on a daily basis. I also choose to accept that their identity/consciousness/soul and mine are the same type off things and that I should grant them the rights and respect I want to be granted in turn. Once I accept that, then with respect to this topic, I need to decide when I should start granting them that rights. The biology is factual and objectively verifiable. Gametes are living cells, but do not have the structure to form a what I have accepted as an identity/consciousness/soul, and therefor I do not give them those rights and respect. I can observer my 16 month old son and see that he is capable of emotion and reason, even though he has only rudimentary communications skills, therefore I grant that he has an identity/consciousness/soul. So, I accept as fact that sometime between conception and 16 months that change occurred. Can I pinpoint the exact moment it happened? Unfortunately, no. So, I would tend to err on the safe side. If humans did not incubate their young internally, I would have no problem giving a certain subset of rights and respect at the moment of conception. Since we do incubate inside another individual, we need to decide when rights should begin and when and if they should take precedence over any of the rights of the mother.

Jonathan

*Soul here is not meant to imply anything supernatural or separate from the physical body, just the idea that there is construct that takes shape from the neural/chemical structure that is more than just the mass in the cells, much as the web browser may be a bunch of ones and zero’s in memory, but combined correctly they are program that actually exists.

Respectfully, we do all do those things, but there are very strong arguments that they are wrong. This isn’t about first principles, but rather, what exactly is consciousness and what has it, if it exists. When we are told that we must not allow non-spontaneous abortions in early term because that fetus has brain waves, which makes it conscious, which makes it just like us, that’s taking a couple leaps of faith, besides the consciousness issue. People who want to think that are more than welcome to, but it isn’t a scientific analysis of the problem of when life begins if consciousness exists and what is it.

>> Even using the term “Fetus” does not solve the problem since dictionaries say the fertilized egg is not a fetus immediately but only after a certain developmental stage is reached.<<

Earl,
I fully agree with you that “fetus” is not a blanket term for all stages of development prior to birth. As I said, our English use is narrower than the Latin. I mention it only because I’ve occasionally heard it used as a rhetorical weapon, as if it described something fundamentally different from an unborn child/offspring/progeny/fruit-of-his-father’s-loins, or whatever else you might call a mini not-quite-born humanoid.

>> Why must the fertilized egg at whatever stage be one or the other? i.e. a human life or a tumor.<<

I didn’t mean to set it up as “human life” vs. “tumor.” We would have to look at the life, at whatever stage prior to birth, and say, “Is this human life or is this not human life?” If it is not human life, that is, something less than human, then of course it’s value is negligible compared to the only human life involved, the life of the mother. If for some reason we came to the conclusion that this unborn life is indeed human, then we would have two human lives to concern ourselves with, one wholly dependent upon the other, and would have to act accordingly.

A third possibility, one that I have serious reservations about, is that what is “human” belongs on some kind of sliding scale, that humanity is relative. In this case a fertilized egg might start out as less than human and gradually increase in humanity until birth, at which point full humanity would (hopefully) be achieved. If humanity is relative, how do we gauge it? That is, on what factors does it depend? Mental capacity? Physical or sensory development? Age? Size? Dependence?

My problem is that choosing any one or combination of factors to make humanity relative has disastrous results for the rest of society. Who among us has the hubris to claim authority over who qualifies? I shudder to think of whole classes of people, the mentally undeveloped, the elderly and infirm, the poor, the unwanted, the handicapped, that girl on Hard Copy who couldn’t feel pain… all being reclassified as “less than fully human,” and therefore less valuable, using the same logic we might use to say that an embryo/fetus/whatever is partially, but not fully, human.

I myself, once upon a time, was a wee itty bitty baby in my mommy’s tummy, and I was born dangerously premature. My body was far too small and not yet developed enough to survive outside her. I was fully dependent on machines and medical science for survival. If my humanity were dependent on time from conception or size, development or independence, at that point I would not have qualified. Why was I considered human then, and granted “personhood?” My location. If I’d been physically identical and still within her instead of a plastic box, I would not have been human by reason of location. I find that critically illogical.

A philosophical principle that is hardly radical today, one I hope we can agree upon, was eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson in the opening of the Declaration of Independence in 1776:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Of course, it makes sense read “men” in the broader sense of referring to all mankind. They are equal; that is, they share equal dignity and value by virtue of their common humanity regardless of stature or intelligence or physical vitality. They are endowed with unalienable rights. I think we should note the hierarchy of these rights: One cannot pursue happiness without liberty, and one cannot have liberty without life, so the preeminent right is life. Also, Jefferson noted that these rights are inalienable. That is, it is not under the power of the government to bestow them or take them away, because they come from a power above government; namely, “their Creator.” Does it make sense to include the unborn? Not if their lives are not human lives. However, if they are indeed human, if they share our common humanity, then our principles tell us that their rights are Equal, no matter how weak, small, or dependent they may be.

Barring, then, the relativistic sliding-scale approach we must determine whether or not the life in the womb, at any stage, is human. I find it easiest to start at the end and work backwards. If one of a pair of twins is born and therefore inarguably human, the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed that the second twin on the way, differing from its sibling only by location, was not also human. It would be careless and foolish to not consider the unborn twin as also human for lack of evidence to the contrary. Until I am made aware of a logical argument that disproves the humanity of a full-term baby based on its location, I must consider it fully human. What’s more, because I cannot consider humanity a function of size or development, because I do not have the authority to declare who is or is not human, I trace the development of the human life back to it’s source, and conclude that both the humanity and the life began at conception-- on principle, not because it looks or acts or seems human, but because I know, logically, that it is.

Earl said “You are right and they are wrong because…”

Earl, right and wrong are valuative categories. Correct and incorrect are logical categories. Logic can lead us to truthful conclusions but without the empirical evidence, we don’t have a warrant to accept them as true even if we have sufficient reason.

When life begins is not a matter of potentiality but a matter of actuality. Human beings are always in a state of potentiality, born or unborn. Life is always in a state of actuality—alive or not alive, it’s alive or it’s dead, there’s no in-between. Or, life is what happens before death.

The problem as I see it with your argument is, as I stated earlier, no matter at what point you examine the unborn, you will find that life has already begun. If it were possible to determine pregnancy a nano second after the moment of conception, we would find that another life “actually” exists within the womb or even in a petri dish, would we not? Therefore, logically and empiracally speaking, we must conclude that life begins at the moment of conception. We may or may not become “persons” only because we’re alive.

Your misunderstanding of legal rights vs. inalienable rights is also confusing. In its primary document, Americans believe in the inalienable right to life. Does it mean anything else other than life in actuality? And if so, how do you warrant another conclusion?

In response to M. Anthony, you said, “Classifying the fertilized egg as a human life results in all sorts of issues which have already needed court rulings, specificaly what are the rights of the organism, or the procreators as pertains to that organism if it never leaves the test tube / petri dish and is distroyed?”

Yes, court rulings are often messy and illogical at the same time. However, your example of legal ineptitude still disregards the question of a. whether the fertilized egg is alive; whether the fertilized egg is a human life? The question still must be posed from a legal standpoint: does an innocent human life have an inalienable right to its life?

My statement was meant to be rhetorical. Each position has reasons to support that position. The opposing position rejects some or all of the reasons decicding that oothers views are arbitrary.

[quote=“Brother_Woody, post:54, topic:471508”]

Earl said “You are right and they are wrong because…”

Earl, right and wrong are valuative categories. Correct and incorrect are logical categories. Logic can lead us to truthful conclusions but without the empirical evidence, we don’t have a warrant to accept them as true even if we have sufficient reason.

QUOTE]

I really wonder if you just don’t get it or simply choose to ignore other viewpoints even to the point of imposing your own limited definitions toachieve the conclusion you desire. The following is from Dictionary.com:

right
   raɪtShow Spelled Pronunciation [rahyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb
–adjective

  1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
  2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
  3. correctly or accurately: to guess right.

wrong - 14 dictionary results
Sponsored Links2 Secrets For Dieting
How a Broke and Overweight Mom Lost 45 lbs. in 3 Months For Free
www.AmysWeightBlog.com
English Dictionary
Looking for English Dictionary? Find exactly what you want today.

Tummy Tuck Gone Wrong?
Before you yell tummy tuck gone wrong. Try a no surgery tummy tuck.

wrong
   rɔŋ,rɒŋShow Spelled Pronunciation [rawng, rong] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective

  1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
  2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.

So, "Right’ and “Correct” as well as Wrong and Incorrect are synonyms.

While they may be used to imply value judgements in this case they were not.

[quote=“Brother_Woody, post:54, topic:471508”]

Earl said “You are right and they are wrong because…”
When life begins is not a matter of potentiality but a matter of actuality. Human beings are always in a state of potentiality, born or unborn. Life is always in a state of actuality—alive or not alive, it’s alive or it’s dead, there’s no in-between. Or, life is what happens before death.

The problem as I see it with your argument is, QUOTE]

No, the problem is you do not see it at all.

The term unborm human being is an oxymoron. It isn’t being because it has never been born and as some of stated also taken a breath of air. An organism that has never done these two things has never achieved the threshold of a human being.

You choose to see one thing and one thing only. That is your right.

[QUOTE=
Your misunderstanding of legal rights vs. inalienable rights is also confusing. In its primary document, Americans believe in the inalienable right to life. Does it mean anything else other than life in actuality? And if so, how do you warrant another conclusion?

In response to M. Anthony, you said, “Classifying the fertilized egg as a human life results in all sorts of issues which have already needed court rulings, specificaly what are the rights of the organism, or the procreators as pertains to that organism if it never leaves the test tube / petri dish and is distroyed?”

Yes, court rulings are often messy and illogical at the same time. However, your example of legal ineptitude still disregards the question of a. whether the fertilized egg is alive; whether the fertilized egg is a human life? The question still must be posed from a legal standpoint: does an innocent human life have an inalienable right to its life?[/QUOTE]

All of your points, questions, arguments etc. are founded on the premise that human life begins at conception.

Once this premise is rejected all else falls by the wayside. If an organism has never become a human life there is no inalienable right to life.

Therefore I have no misunderstanding of legal versus inalienable rights.

The most ridiculous point that I’ve heard over the years is that men should have no say in matters such as these because they’ll never have to experience pregnancy. Does that mean that only female lawmakers should be able to enact any laws regarding pregnancy? I suppose only men should govern how doctors perform prostate surgery because a woman can never experience it. Or should the government have no say in how doctors perform any type of surgery? After all, it’s my body that will have a mole removed from it, for example, and the government has no right to interfere.
Most of the concepts regarding this topic are confusing and controversial. However, the idea that men should have no say about when life begins or the abortion issue is a knee-jerk reaction and should be laid to rest for good.

Earl said, “The term unborm human being is an oxymoron (sic). It isn’t being because it has never been born and as some of stated also taken a breath of air. An organism that has never done these two things has never achieved the threshold (sic) of a human being.”

Again, Earl, you’re conflating actuality and potentiality to synonymous terms. The history of Western philosophy consistently supports this ontological difference from Aristotle to Sartre (“Being and Nothingness”). As far as “human life” and “human being,” these are synonymous terms, no less so as “dog life” and “dog being.”

You’re also conflating the concepts of natural law and positive law. Our inalienable rights expressed in the Declaration are in the realm of natural law, our Bill of Rights expressed in the Constitution are in the realm of positive law. The Founders realized and embraced the difference.

As articulated here much more skillfully by others, bio-science too supports my assertion that no matter at what arbitrary stage of pregnancy that one chooses to explore, life will be found to have already begun. You have thus far ignored this observation. You have also yet to provide logical or empirical evidence that the statement, “Life begins at the moment of conception,” is false. Should you choose to adhere to any other conclusion, you’ve yet to demonstrate any epistemological warrant for doing so, thus devolving your arguments into relativism and personal preference without settling the original question of “When does life begin?”

Furthermore, if one doesn’t posit the abortion question as subsumed under the life question,
under what category does one legitimately posit it? Your insistence that we’re not dealing with human life in the womb is a house of cards where all other arguments collapse including the abortion question, the petri dish question, the clonning question, the rape question, the handicap question, the euthenasia question, the suicide question. Is your position really the one that you want to adopt and stick with?